Antitrusthttp://www.businessinsider.com/category/antitrust
en-usTue, 31 Mar 2015 17:36:12 -0400Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:36:12 -0400The latest news on Antitrust from Business Insiderhttp://static3.businessinsider.com/assets/images/bilogo-250x36-wide-rev.pngBusiness Insiderhttp://www.businessinsider.com
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-response-to-wall-street-journal-about-white-house-visits-ftc-2015-3Google fires back at the Wall Street Journal over White House meetings: 'Really, Rupert?'http://www.businessinsider.com/google-response-to-wall-street-journal-about-white-house-visits-ftc-2015-3
Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:39:22 -0400Jillian D'Onfro
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/55123e1a6da811461e8b4567-1200-900/larry-page-sergey-brin-eric-schmidt-google-portrait-illustration-13.jpg" border="0" alt="Larry Page Sergey Brin Eric Schmidt Google Portrait Illustration"></p><p>Google just <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/">fired off a feisty blog post</a> refuting <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076">a recent Wall Street journal piece</a> about the company's ties to the White House.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Google basically said that yes, some former and current Google employees have visited the White House quite a lot in recent years. But, they weren't there to discuss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust probe into the company, as it says The Wall Street Journal insinuates.&nbsp;</p>
<p>"In fact, we seem to have discussed everything but," Google writes.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The tension between the paper and Google started after&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-u-s-antitrust-probe-of-google-1426793274">The WSJ recently published a major story</a>&nbsp;about the FTC's 2012 investigation into Google's anticompetitive practices, after <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/feds-gave-wall-street-journal-google-antitrust-report-accident-2015-3">accidentally obtaining the staff's internal report</a> through an unrelated Freedom of Information Act request. The <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-makes-most-of-close-ties-to-white-house-1427242076">paper then published a follow-up story</a> about the number of White House visits Google employees during the FTC's deliberations about its antitrust investigation.&nbsp;</p>
<p>"<span>As the federal government was wrapping up its antitrust investigation of&nbsp;</span>Google<span>&nbsp;Inc.,</span><span>&nbsp;company executives had a flurry of meetings with top officials at the White House and Federal Trade Commission," the WSJ story begins. It then goes on to say that Google employees have visited the White House <span>230 times&nbsp;</span>since President Obama took office, based on visitor logs. The piece doesn't claim to know the content of many of the meetings, but points out how many took place right before the FTC made its decision to drop its antitrust probe.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span>In a blog post published Friday evening, Google SVP of communications and policy Rachel Whetstone addresses specific claims from the WSJ piece, including the number of White House visits Google made and that the Bureau of Economics findings disagreed with the findings of the FTC.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span>"<span>Given the inaccuracies that have been published, we wanted to give our side of the story," she writes.&nbsp;</span></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Here's Google's full post, titled "Really, Rupert?" (GIFs their own)</strong>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Last year Robert Thomson, CEO of News Corp, accused Google of creating a "less informed, more vexatious level of dialogue in our society." Given the tone of some of your publications, that made quite a few people chuckle.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Pwga35tZvpW9M3Yv3BESFG78HlachgtvzmIao7etKScvucDDjR99ZVcqBmW97z80zNMWRjuRwcVLg5c8yp_CIdZwse6qj2INTs5KcPNhlKuib43c6HqxoPeK1GActq5K-XLHBmY" border="0" alt="tumblr_liawtqPPmT1qc7bl7.gif" width="528px;" height="283px;"></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">This week you were at it again. &nbsp;One of your newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, accused Google of wielding undue political influence. &nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It#/media/File:It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It.jpg">Blimey</a>!<br><br>More seriously, given the inaccuracies that have been published, we wanted to give our side of the story. Here goes.<br><br><strong>Wall Street Journal</strong>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">“The findings [from the Bureau of Competition] stand in contrast to the conclusion of the FTC’s commissioners, who voted unanimously in early 2013 to end the investigation.”. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br><br><strong>Google</strong>:<br>As the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/statement-chairwoman-edith-ramirez-commissioners-julie-brill">FTC made clear this week</a>: &nbsp;“... the Commission’s decision on the search allegations was in accord with the recommendations of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and Office of General Counsel” (something the Journal has chosen not to report).<br><br><strong>Wall Street Journal</strong>:<br>“Since Mr. Obama took office, employees of the Mountain View, Calif., company have visited the White House for meetings with senior officials about 230 times … &nbsp;In comparison, employees of rival Comcast Corp., also known as a force in Washington, have visited the White House a total of about 20 times … Google’s knack for getting in the room with important government officials is gaining new relevance as scrutiny grows over how the company avoided being hit by the FTC with a potentially damaging antitrust lawsuit”.<br><br><strong>Google</strong>:<br>Of course we’ve had many meetings at the White House over the years. &nbsp;But when it comes to the information the Journal provided to Google about these meetings, our employment records show that 33 of the White House visits were by people not employed here at the time. &nbsp;And over five visits were a Google engineer on leave helping to fix technical issues with the government’s Healthcare.gov website (something he’s been <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vc8sxhy2I4">very public about</a>). &nbsp;Checking through White House records for other companies, our team counted around 270 visits for Microsoft over the same time frame and 150 for Comcast. &nbsp;<br><br>And the meetings we did have were not to discuss the antitrust investigation. &nbsp;In fact, we seem to have discussed everything but, including patent reform, STEM education, self-driving cars, mental health, advertising, Internet censorship, smart contact lenses, civic innovation, R&amp;D, cloud computing, trade and investment, cyber security, energy efficiency and our workplace benefit policies. &nbsp;For example: &nbsp;</p>
<ul style="padding-left: 30px;">
<li style="padding-left: 30px;">Several visits were advertising industry meetings attended by Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and others. &nbsp;Yes, Microsoft, the main complainant in the FTC’s antitrust investigation;</li>
<li style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">Over a dozen visits were for production crews covering the </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbR6iQ62v9k">YouTube interviews </a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">with the President following the State of the Union and photographing the </span><a href="https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/u/0/collection/the-white-house?projectId=art-project">White House art collection</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;"> for Google’s Art Project;</span></li>
<li style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">One of the meetings specifically called out by the Journal was actually a meeting with our Chairman, Eric Schmidt, and Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond, with several other technology companies to discuss copyright legislation (the draft SOPA/PIPA laws that were ultimately dropped by Congress).</span></li>
</ul>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">As the FTC has said, the Journal "makes a number of misleading inferences and suggestions about the integrity of the FTC's investigation. The article suggests that a series of disparate and unrelated meetings involving FTC officials and executive branch officials or Google representatives somehow affected the Commission's decision to close the search investigation in early 2013. Not a single fact is offered to substantiate this misleading narrative".&nbsp;<br><br>We understand you have a new found love of the regulatory process, especially in Europe, but as the FTC’s Bureau of Competition staff concluded, Google has strong pro-competitive arguments on our side. &nbsp;To quote from their report “... the record will permit Google to show substantial innovation, intense competition from Microsoft and others, and speculative long-run harm”. &nbsp;<br><br>And the FTC was not alone when it comes to search ranking and display. &nbsp;The <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2882072/ohio-closes-google-antitrust-investigation.html">Texas and Ohio</a> Attorneys General closed their comprehensive competition investigations into Google in 2014. And courts in <a href="http://searchengineland.com/google-wins-vertical-search-antitrust-case-in-germany-158544?utm_campaign=tweet&amp;utm_source=socialflow&amp;utm_medium=twitter">Germany</a> and <a href="http://searchengineland.com/google-wins-major-antitrust-victory-in-brazil-does-it-foreshadow-broader-eu-us-wins-132729">Brazil</a> found that there is no basis in the law for Google competitors to dictate Google’s search results.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/jfKadBSvXCETyd0LooKbSsY9cCrFWf3kfANJQ1ajphNNDNdY8028HWF_R-zILUPQ9AZHz0kz336aD8vXKpYQ9Y39cNigH9EmiuoXhiaWRbLZCPHtuGUKmUh-51Nz2ClGYn3SK0k" border="0" alt="giphy.gif" width="532px;" height="295px;"></p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-works-the-white-house-230-visits-since-obama-took-office-2015-3" >Google is now one of the most powerful corporate forces in Washington</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-response-to-wall-street-journal-about-white-house-visits-ftc-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/jen-selter-belfies-instagram-background-kim-kardashian-butt-selfie-2015-2">Forget Kim Kardashian — the 'butt selfie' queen of Instagram is a 21-year-old from Long Island</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-tech-boom-could-end-2015-3The antitrust ruling against Microsoft was the top of the dot-com boom. History could repeat itself with Googlehttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-tech-boom-could-end-2015-3
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:08:00 -0400Matt Rosoff
<p>The tech industry is in a boom right now. We know that&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-bubble-boom-and-bust-2015-3">every boom has its bust</a>.</p>
<p>But the hard part is figuring out when the turn will happen.</p>
<p>You're probably familiar with this chart. It's the historical tech-heavy NASDAQ index from its inception to the present date:</p>
<p><img src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55149bea6bb3f7eb075e9b13-1068-446/nasdaq-all-time.png" border="0" alt="NASDAQ all time"></p>
<p>See that quick rise and fall? That was the dot-com boom and bust.</p>
<p>(There are other more accurate measurements of the total value of tech companies, but this is a pretty good proxy and one that's commonly used, so let's run with it for the sake of argument.)</p>
<p>If you zoom in a little bit on the peak of the dot-com craze, between 1998 and 2002, you can see that the NASDAQ peaked in March 2000. March 24, to be exact:</p>
<p><img src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55149d6c69beddf4513654af-1070-455/nasdaq-peak.png" border="0" alt="NASDAQ Peak"></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">I lived through this time, and it's always fascinated me. Why did the tide suddenly turn?&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>In December 1996, then-Fed chair Alan Greenspan warned that stocks were being driven by "irrational exuberance," but people kept buying.</p>
<p>Things got completely ridiculous in 1999 — that's when we saw companies with not only zero profits, but also zero revenues and zero customers, somehow going public.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But people kept buying, all the way up to the spring of 2000.</p>
<p>What changed? Why did all the tech companies who looked great in January turn to dogs by the summer? Was there a big political change? No, that happened in November 2000, by which time the slide was well underway. Was there some great geopolitical disaster? No, that happened in September 2001, by which time the bubble was long over.</p>
<p>Here's another chart of exactly the same period:</p>
<p><img src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55149c836bb3f7ae0b5e9b18-1076-459/nasdaq-april-3-2000.png" border="0" alt="NASDAQ april 3 2000"></p>
<p>Why did I center this one on April 3?</p>
<p>Because that's the day something big happened in the tech industry.</p>
<p>That was the day that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-238758.html">ruled</a> that Microsoft had violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, a national antitrust law in the United States. &nbsp;</p>
<p>There were other big dates in that trial. On November 5, 1999, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/Judge-calls-Microsoft-a-monopoly/2100-1040_3-232565.html">Jackson issued </a>his "findings of fact," which formally stated that Microsoft was a monopoly and had used its monopoly power to intimidate companies like&nbsp;<span>Netscape, IBM, Compaq, and Intel. And after the verdict, on June 7, 2000, Jackson issued his penalties, including an order to break Microsoft into two companies. (A lot of his ruling was overturned on appeal, and eventually Microsoft settled the case with the Department of Justice in 2001 and all the related antitrust cases with private companies and state attorneys general over the next several years.)</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But that first date, April 3, was the day that the United States government formally declared that the biggest and most powerful company in the sector that was driving these crazy stock market valuations had broken the law.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">If you're looking for a psychological event that might have spooked tech investors — or, less charitably, caused them to wake up and learn to read a financial report — that seems like a pretty good date to zero in on.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Right now, the most powerful company in the tech world is probably Apple. It's certainly the biggest. And as far as we know, there are no big government agencies investigating Apple.</span></p>
<p>But if Apple is number one, Google is number two.</p>
<p>In some ways, Google has a much broader reach than Apple. Sure, Apple has one of the most profitable products ever in the iPhone, but Google's mobile platform, Android, ships on about five or six times as many new phones every day.</p>
<p>Plus, Google dominates online advertising. It's got the biggest video site in the world, YouTube. It's got (arguably, depending how you measure) the most popular web browser on personal computers, Chrome. &nbsp;</p>
<p>And Google is suddenly <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3">under a lot of scrutiny</a>, both in the United States and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-expected-to-face-antitrust-charges-in-europe-next-month-2015-3">Europe</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>History doesn't necessarily repeat itself. But at some point, something will cause investors who are pouring their money into tech companies — or the limited partners who are pouring their money into venture capital funds who are investing in tech companies — to change their minds.</p>
<p>Maybe it'll be a change in interest rates, a big geopolitical shift, a natural or manmade disaster, or some other macro event.</p>
<p>But <em>if&nbsp;</em>a powerful government decides to investigate Google's core business, and&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>it decides that Google has violated antitrust law, and&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>it hands down severe remedies like splitting Google into two companies, that might be a pretty strong signal to investors that the upside in tech isn't quite as unlimited as they might have imagined.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a government breakup of Google would cause a burst of new investment into its competitors. Maybe the Valley would rejoice that the giant has finally been slowed.</p>
<p>But that's not what happened last time.</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-is-not-a-charity-2015-3" >The one very important thing everyone needs to understand about Google</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-tech-boom-could-end-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-allen-microsoft-discovers-battleship-japan-world-war-2015-3">Here's what Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen actually found at the bottom of the ocean in the Philippines</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-works-the-white-house-230-visits-since-obama-took-office-2015-3Google is now one of the most powerful corporate forces in Washingtonhttp://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-works-the-white-house-230-visits-since-obama-took-office-2015-3
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:53:00 -0400Owen Davis
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/55123e1a6da811461e8b4567-1200-900/larry-page-sergey-brin-eric-schmidt-google-portrait-illustration-13.jpg" border="0" alt="Larry Page Sergey Brin Eric Schmidt Google Portrait Illustration"></p><p>Google built its empire through its unrivaled search engine. Now it's trying to preserve that power through an unrivaled political engine.</p>
<p>With an average of one meeting per week with White House officials throughout Obama's tenure, the&nbsp;Wall Street Journal&nbsp;reported, Google has evolved into one of the most powerful corporate forces in Washington.</p>
<p>Google's political muscle came to the fore in 2012, when the Federal Trade Commission announced an antitrust inquiry into the tech giant's search business.</p>
<p>In response, Google hired a dozen lobbyists and arranged a fusillade of&nbsp;favorable public events&nbsp;and high-level meetings with FTC and White House officials.</p>
<p>The FTC eventually dropped the investigation and Google adjusted its policies on its own. (Incidentally, the FTC's investigation was&nbsp;made public&nbsp;last week.)&nbsp;</p>
<p>Today, only Comcast spends more on lobbying than Google, which spent $16.8 billion in 2014 trying to influence lawmakers. Google was also the second-highest contributor to President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012, falling short only to Microsoft.</p>
<p><img src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4dfa1749ccd1d52840010000-1200-924/obama-at-agoogle.jpg" border="0" alt="obama and eric schmidt at google"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">When it opened nine years ago, Google's Washington office&nbsp;housed just one person.&nbsp;Now it occupies 55,000 square feet -- which, as the&nbsp;Washington Post&nbsp;noted last year, makes it about the size of the White House. Google has around 100 lobbyists from 20 lobbying firms.</span></p>
<p>Lobbying isn't the only way Google wields its growing influence. The company&nbsp;supports&nbsp;145 trade associations and third-party groups, ranging from the Human Rights Campaign to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts model legislation along conservative principles. High-level Google employees have wound up serving in a number of capacities on Capitol Hill, from White House advisory panels to executive branch positions.</p>
<p>The company has defended its wide-ranging political efforts, telling the Journal in part, "We think it is important to have a strong voice in the debate and help policymakers understand our business and the work we do to keep the Internet open."</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/yandex-google-russia-antitrust-investigation-2015-2" >Google faces an antitrust probe in Russia</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-google-works-the-white-house-230-visits-since-obama-took-office-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-51-billion-dollar-sochi-olympics-2015-2">Putin's $51 billion Sochi plan blew up in his face</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/5-myths-about-google-2015-35 myths about Googlehttp://www.businessinsider.com/5-myths-about-google-2015-3
Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:27:00 -0400Daniel Lyons
<h3><img style="float:right;" src="http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/550ed02fecad046c4419330d-600-/google-eric-schmidt-larry-page-sergey-brin-5.jpg" border="0" alt="google eric schmidt, larry page, sergey brin" width="600">1) Google is a search company.</h3>
<p>Search is Google's primary product.</p>
<p>Its search engine is so widely used that "Google" has become a dictionary-approved verb, and the company makes virtually all of its money by selling ads connected to search.</p>
<p>But Google's ventures into self-driving cars and balloons that deliver Internet connectivity from the stratosphere show that it's not just a search company.</p>
<p>Its long-term plan is to become an artificial-intelligence company.</p>
<p>Google has built a research group around AI and machine learning, and it even hired renowned AI guru Ray Kurzweil, who believes that by 2045 humans will merge with computers in what's known as "the Singularity."</p>
<p>Google's recent acquisitions speak to its intentions: British company DeepMind, one of the most advanced AI development shops in the world, plus eight of the world's best robotics companies. Nobody knows what Google will do with all these robots and AI software, but its ambitions certainly go well beyond self-driving cars.</p>
<p>This work takes place inside Google X, the company's top-secret research lab. A few hundred people work there, a tiny but potent slice of Google's workforce of 53,600.</p>
<p>Google isn't alone in the quest to develop AI (Facebook also has an AI research team), but it's one of the few organizations with the brainpower and financial resources to make true artificial intelligence a reality.&nbsp;Plus, AI is in its blood: Google co-founder and chief executive Larry Page is the son of renowned AI pioneer Carl Page, and he's personally funding a research project to reverse-engineer the brain of a worm.</p>
<p>"Every time I talk about Google's future with Larry Page, he argues that it will become an artificial-intelligence" company, tech venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson has said.</p>
<h3>2) Google Glass was a failure.</h3>
<p>Headlines proclaimed that Google Glass "flopped" and "failed" after the company announced it would stop selling its goofy $1,500 eyewear. As a consumer product, Glass was declared clunky, too expensive and not useful.</p>
<p>But Glass shouldn't be measured only in terms of its commercial success.</p>
<p>In the summer of 2013, I was among a group of "influencers" invited to the Google campus to see some future products. Many of the influencers showed up proudly sporting their Google Glass eyewear — and looking like idiots. Not one of the Google executives wore Glass.</p>
<p><img src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5459591c69bedd3223234014-1200-600/google-glass-124.jpg" border="0" alt="Google Glass."></p>
<p>That's because Google viewed Glass as an experiment, a way to explore wearable computing and learn lessons it can apply to other, presumably less-hideous-looking products.</p>
<p>Wearable devices, all the rage at this year's South by Southwest tech conference, will eventually be a huge market, encompassing products from virtual-reality goggles to fitness bands to smartwatches such as the new Apple watch and the competitor version that Google announced this past week.</p>
<p>Though Glass didn't catch on, it created tremendous buzz and established Google as a pioneer in the market.</p>
<h3>3) Google is a leading force for diversity in Silicon Valley.</h3>
<p>The company made news for publishing numbers on its workforce demographics in May 2014, which encouraged Facebook and Yahoo to follow suit.</p>
<p>Internally, Google has launched workshops to teach employees about "unconscious bias," and it has donated millions since 2010 to groups that aim to get girls and women interested in tech careers. In February, Google announced $775,000 in grants to CODE2040, an organization trying to help more African Americans and Latinos join the industry.</p>
<p>But "we're the first to admit that Google is miles from where we want to be," the company's head of "people operations," Laszlo Bock, said of its 2 percent black workforce, adding that "being totally clear about the extent of the problem is a really important part of the solution."</p>
<p>If Google wants to position itself as a leader on diversity, it might consider promoting more women and minorities to positions of power at the company.</p>
<p>Google's 11-member board of directors boasts only three women and no African Americans. Its management team includes five executive officers — all male, one black. Its senior leadership team has 15 members; only three are women, and none is African American.</p>
<p><img src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/52b4ba246da811ea72fdd827-1200-600/google-employee-office-6.jpg" border="0" alt="google employee office"></p>
<p>Google might also encourage one of its most powerful officers to stop acting sexist on a national stage. Chairman Eric Schmidt was called out this past week (by the company's "unconscious bias" officer) for repeatedly interrupting Megan Smith, a former Google executive who is now chief technology officer of the United States, while Schmidt and Smith appeared on a South by Southwest panel together.</p>
<h3>4) Google has an unassailable monopoly on search.</h3>
<p>Google dominates the search market so thoroughly that in 2009, when Microsoft introduced its Bing search engine, even people who admired the product reckoned that it didn't stand a chance.</p>
<p>"In 2004, if this was side-by-side with Google, it would be very competitive. In 2009, it's not a level playing field," Alex Hoye, head of a search engine marketing firm, told the Guardian.</p>
<p>He was right. Six years later, Bing has a 12 percent market share in search, and Google has 75 percent — even greater than its share in 2009. Other rivals keep trying to chip away — Yahoo recently picked up a couple of market-share points and now holds 10.6&nbsp;percent — but it appears that in the traditional search engine market, the game is over, and Google has won.</p>
<p>The real threat to Google's search business, though, doesn't come from Microsoft or Yahoo. It comes from Amazon and Facebook, and from the changing habits of online shoppers.</p>
<p>Amazon and Facebook aren't in the search business, strictly speaking, but increasingly people turn to these sites to learn about products.</p>
<p>In other words, the challenge to Google is not that competitors will take over the traditional search engine market but that traditional search engines will become less relevant as search takes place on other sites.</p>
<p>"Our biggest search competitor is Amazon," Schmidt acknowledged last October. "They are obviously more focused on the commerce side of the equation, but, at their roots, they are answering users' questions and searches, just as we are."</p>
<p>(Google's apparent answer to the threat of Amazon was, according to the 2012 government investigation, to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-new-ftc-report-says-about-google-2015-3">illegally copy content from Amazon to improve its own sites</a>.)</p>
<h3>5) Google is Big Brother.</h3>
<p>If you're using Google's online services, including search, Gmail, Maps, YouTube, Drive, Google+, Android, Wallet and Picasa, Google knows a lot about you: your location, browsing history, the videos you watch, your age, gender and interests.</p>
<p>That's earned the company plenty of Big Brother comparisons. (Google it.)</p>
<p><img src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/550ed9bbeab8ea20583e1b08-1200-600/google-car-4.jpg" border="0" alt="google car"></p>
<p>Google's rivals love to play up the company's spying capabilities. Microsoft spent millions on its "Scroogled" ad campaign, which aimed to scare people away from a big, nefarious company that was snooping on its users.</p>
<p>There is a Big Brother online, but it's not Google: It's the NSA. The National Security Agency is the one peering into every major tech company's systems, hoovering up personal information, and refusing to talk about what it stole or why.</p>
<p>Google does gather data about people who use its services, much like other online companies — Apple has as many as 800&nbsp;million credit card numbers on file and perhaps billions of personal photos gathered from iPhones on its iCloud service, including numerous nude celebrity photos leaked by hackers.</p>
<p>The point is not that Google gathers information about people, but rather why. The company's stated goal, and there is no evidence to contradict it, is to deliver ads more relevant to your interests (and ultimately charge more for these ads).</p>
<p>Google has responded aggressively to news about the NSA's activities revealed in the Edward Snowden leaks, vowing to keep developing techniques to prevent the agency from spying on people who use its services.</p>
<p>Co-founder Sergey Brin, who expressed shock over the NSA's activities, said Google has 1,000 engineers working on security and has started encrypting data flowing across its servers. Schmidt described its defenses as "techniques that no one believes the NSA can break in our lifetime."</p>
<p>Mike Hearn, a security researcher at Google, offered this response: "Nobody at . . . the NSA will ever stand before a judge and answer for this industrial-scale subversion of the judicial process. In the absence of working law enforcement, we therefore do what internet engineers have always done — build more secure software."</p>
<p>Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/realdanlyons">@realdanlyons</a></p>
<p>This article was from The Washington Post and was legally licensed through the NewsCred publisher network.</p>
<p><img src="https://pixel.newscred.com/px.gif?key=YXJ0aWNsZT00NGU4NTQ5NmY0NmQ3YWNjYTcxZDEyNmY5ZTcyMTUyOSZwdWJsaXNoZXI9NzMwZWI4NmFiNTlmMGQ0MTkyNmFjNjViMDFmODNlMmY=" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1"></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/5-myths-about-google-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employee-perks-2014-12">Jeff Bezos Slams Silly Google Perks Like Massages</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-expected-to-face-antitrust-charges-in-europe-next-month-2015-3Europe is about to drop the boom on Googlehttp://www.businessinsider.com/google-expected-to-face-antitrust-charges-in-europe-next-month-2015-3
Sat, 21 Mar 2015 09:44:00 -0400Maya Kosoff
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54d90d9869beddaf03be0eb3-953-715/nuclear-explosion-larry-page-12.jpg" border="0" alt="nuclear explosion larry page"></p><p>Google <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3">may have gotten a pass in the US a few years ago from the Federal Trade </a><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3">Commission</a>, which decided not to sue the search giant for&nbsp;<span>alleged anticompetitive practices, but the company may not be so lucky in Europe.</span></p>
<p><span>Antitrust officials at the European Commission are expected to "file formal charges" against the search giant soon, reports the Wall Street Journal.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Earlier this week, a leaked report from the FTC showed that key staffers at the agency <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ftc-wanted-antitrust-charges-against-google-2015-3#ixzz3V1l1gOjC">wanted to sue Google</a> after their probe in 2012,&nbsp;<span>saying it abused its monopoly power. They said that&nbsp;</span></span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-new-ftc-report-says-about-google-2015-3">Google threatened to remove websites from its Search feature</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;if companies like Amazon and Yelp didn't comply and let Google use their content.</span></p>
<p>But after Google made some changes, FTC commissioners unanimously voted to not bring charges and&nbsp;<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">the investigation was closed.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">But in Europe, the antitrust probe continues. Google has a 90% plus search share in the European market — but it also has a caustic relationship with authorities on the continent. In November,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/european-parliament-voted-to-break-up-google-2014-11">the European Parliament decided in a non-binding vote to break up Google and spin off the company's Search component</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. Google is at least aware of the hostile regulatory climate it faces in Europe —&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">in February,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f625176-bcf5-11e4-a917-00144feab7de.html#axzz3SqATkIsb">Google overhauled its European operations and appointed a single executive at its head</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Spanish lawmaker and </span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">European Parliament member</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, who has been an outspoken critic of the company, said:&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"></span><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-avoided-ftc-probe-but-others-loom-1426858302">“This new... evidence is crucial and could not come at better time,"</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> regarding the leaked FTC report.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span><span><span>In response to criticism,&nbsp;</span></span></span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Google Executive Chairman&nbsp;Eric Schmidt said:&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“At end of the day, the FTC commission made their decision and we agree with that," according to the WSJ.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">There are other complaints from Europe about Google too. Per <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-europe-matt-brittin-regulation-pressure-consolidating-2015-2#ixzz3V1gY5t9u">Business Insider's Rob Price</a>:<br></span></p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Accusations of tax avoidance.</strong>&nbsp;Google — along with other Silicon Valley giants — has been attacked over financial arrangements that significantly lower its tax bills. Matt Brittin — Google Europe's new boss — was infamously grilled by British MPs over the issue.</li>
<li><strong>The right to be forgotten.</strong>&nbsp;Following a ruling in May 2014, European citizens can appeal to Google to have "outdated" or "irrelevant" information removed from search listings about them. Google fiercely opposes the ruling, but it has implemented the takedown system.</li>
<li><strong>Publishing conflicts.</strong>&nbsp;Spain recently attempted to charge Google for linking to articles by Spanish publishers. Google refused to pay up, instead closing down its Google News service in the country.</li>
</ul>
<p class="p1"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Other companies are also investigating Google's business practices, the WSJ reports, including Taiwan, Brazil, Canada, and India.</span></p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3" >The Google backlash is growing</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-expected-to-face-antitrust-charges-in-europe-next-month-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/evantubehd-youtube-star-evan-toys-unboxing-2015-2">This 9-year-old makes $1 million a year opening toys</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3The Google backlash is growinghttp://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3
Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:26:00 -0400Matt Weinberger
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5331abe7eab8ead538f5119e-600-/rtx16bks.jpg" border="0" alt="google bus protests twitter san franciso" width="600"></p><p>In the wake of yesterday's leaked FTC report indicating that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-the-new-ftc-report-says-about-google-2015-3">Google threatened web sites with removal from its search engine</a> if they didn't let Google use their content,&nbsp;the backlash against Google is rising again.</p>
<p>A few years ago, Google faced a lot of criticism, for everything from letting some of its Street View cars <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html">collect people's Wi-Fi data</a>, to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-knew-it-was-accepting-illegal-ads-but-helped-them-anyway-2011-8">showing ads from Canadian pharmacies who violated US laws</a>.</p>
<p>But the criticism seemed to have died down in the year or so.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Now, a consumer advocacy group in the US in calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to reopen its investigation into Google, while at least one lawmaker in Europe is calling for a crackdown on its practices.&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>At the heart of the matter is the internal FTC report's finding that Google was effectively blackmailing competing sites like Yelp and Amazon into using their data in its own search result. If they didn't agree, they would get blacklisted from search results entirely.&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The report recommended that the FTC file charges, but instead Google underwent some voluntary changes and the investigation was closed.</span></p>
<p>In the European Union, however,&nbsp;<span>investigations into Google's allegedly anticompetitive practices are still going on. Outspoken Google critic and European Parliament member&nbsp;<span>Ramon Tremosa i Balcells</span>&nbsp;has used the report as ammunition in his fight for the European Union to take a strong stand against the search giant.</span></p>
<p><span>Some have criticized the EU's scrutiny of Google as kneejerk reactionism against a successful American company invading European territory. The fact that the FTC could have, but didn't, file charges, show that the issues are serious and that it's not a “protectionist E.U. war against a U.S. company,” said Tremosa, according to a <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/european-lawmaker-pushes-europe-to-take-stronger-stance-on-google/?_r=1">New York Times report</a>.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.consumerwatchdog.org">Consumer Watchdog</a>, a California-based advocacy group, says that the report's findings indicate that it's time for the US Senate Antitrust Committee to reopen an investigation and figure out exactly how Google escaped prosecution.</span></p>
<p><span>"It is unfathomable that the FTC declined to sue the Internet giant, in the face of pervasive and persuasive evidence from its expert staff.&nbsp;</span><span>The only way the FTC can redeem itself and regain public trust is to re-open the case. Indeed, Google's anticompetitive and abusive practices of favoring its own services in search results continue,"&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;said&nbsp;</span><span class="xn-person">John M. Simpson</span><span>, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project director, in a press release.&nbsp;</span></span></p>
<p>Google continues to insist on its innocence, while the FTC stands by its decision not to press charges.&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-backlash-in-wake-of-ftc-revelations-2015-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> <p>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-driving-checkpoint-regulation-hack-2015-2">A lawyer in Florida has come up with an ingenious way for drivers to evade drunken-driving checkpoints</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-google-looks-to-head-off-us-antitrust-lawsuit-over-android-2014-12Google Is Trying To Persuade The US To Dismiss An Antitrust Lawsuit Over Androidhttp://www.businessinsider.com/r-google-looks-to-head-off-us-antitrust-lawsuit-over-android-2014-12
Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:29:47 -0500Dan Levine
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/54928aca5afbd340608b4567-450-300/google-looks-to-head-off-us-antitrust-lawsuit-over-android.jpg" border="0" alt="A Google Android figurine sits on the welcome desk as employee Tracy McNeilly smiles at the new Google office in Toronto, November 13, 2012. REUTERS/Mark Blinch "></p><p></p>
<p>SAN JOSE, Calif. (Reuters) - Google will try to persuade a U.S. judge on Thursday to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit over its Android smartphone operating system, as the Internet search company faces increased regulatory pressure from European authorities.</p>
<p>The hearing in San Jose, California, federal court is over the lawsuit filed by two smartphone consumers who say Google Inc requires Android handset manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics Co Ltd to restrict competing apps like Microsoft Corp's Bing search, partly by making Google's own apps the default.</p>
<p>Google argues in its court filings that the proposed class action should be dismissed because consumers still are free to use the other apps. The plaintiffs counter that most consumers either do not know how to switch default settings, or will not go to the trouble.</p>
<p>Last month, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a non-binding resolution urging antitrust authorities to break up Google. The lawmakers called on the European Commission to consider proposals to unbundle search engines from other commercial services.</p>
<p>Google is the subject of a four-year investigation by the Commission, over allegations that it improperly manipulated search results to rank its own services higher than competitors. European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, who took over the post last month, said she would sample industry views and developments before taking any action.</p>
<p>Separately, Google's competitors including Microsoft filed a complaint with the European Commission over some of the same issues at play in the U.S. consumer lawsuit.</p>
<p>Google apps "are widely used on Android by requiring default placement and other mechanisms for disadvantaging competing apps," the companies said in a summary of their complaint.</p>
<p>Should U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman allow the class action to proceed, plaintiffs' attorneys would be allowed to delve into internal Google emails and contracts with smartphone companies, and could interview Google executives under oath.</p>
<p>"I'm confident we will get into juicy stuff, and I think that will up the pressure on Google as some of the material we discover becomes public," lawyer Steve Berman said in July.</p>
<p>Google, however, said in filings that its deals with handset makers do not prevent rival search engines "from reaching consumers through the various distribution channels available to them."</p>
<p>The case is Gary Feitelson and Daniel McKee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Google Inc, in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California No. 14-2007.</p>
<p>(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Grant McCool)</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-google-looks-to-head-off-us-antitrust-lawsuit-over-android-2014-12#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/ipod-lawsuit-is-looking-more-bogus-by-the-day-2014-12iPod Lawsuit Is Looking More Bogus By The Day (AAPL)http://www.businessinsider.com/ipod-lawsuit-is-looking-more-bogus-by-the-day-2014-12
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:47:00 -0500Mark Sullivan
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/52866b4269bedd0f5e68a822-480-/steve-jobs-ipod-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Steve Jobs iPod" width="480"></p><p>The class action suit brought against Apple by iPod users has entered its fifth day, and chances that the sole remaining plaintiff will be disqualified seem to be growing.</p>
<p>Originally, the class action had two people who claimed damages, but one dropped out last week&nbsp;after Apple attorneys raised doubts about whether that person even owned an iPod during&nbsp;the period in which harm was claimed.</p>
<p>After similar questions were raised about the sole remaining plaintiff on Friday, Apple lawyers asked federal judge&nbsp;Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers&nbsp;to throw out the case. The judge said she’d wait until today to make that decision, But because Apple discovered still more information that might disqualify the plaintiff, the judge decided to put off her decision.</p>
<p>The additional information came from credit card records suggesting&nbsp;the plaintiff didn’t even own the iPods in question.</p>
<p>“We want to win this case on the merit, and we think we’re going to, so we have not pushed to have this decided,” Apple attorney William Isaacson told the judge today.</p>
<p class="story-body-text">The remaining plaintiff, a New Jersey woman named&nbsp;Marianna Rosen, represents a class of consumers who say that between 2006 and 2009 Apple used DRM technology to force them to keep using iPod (and not less expensive competing players) in order to keep the music they’d already bought.</p>
<p class="story-body-text">If Apple loses the case it will have to pay damages of $350 million, much of which, no doubt, will go to the&nbsp;plaintiffs’ attorneys.</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-patents-stylus-2014-12" >Apple Just Patented An Idea That Steve Jobs Would Have Hated</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/ipod-lawsuit-is-looking-more-bogus-by-the-day-2014-12#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-antitrust-case-to-see-steve-jobs-emails-and-video-deposition-as-testimony-2014-12Steve Jobs' Emails And Video Deposition Will Play A Major Role In Apple's Upcoming iPod Antitrust Case (AAPL)http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-antitrust-case-to-see-steve-jobs-emails-and-video-deposition-as-testimony-2014-12
Mon, 01 Dec 2014 10:42:00 -0500Steven Tweedie
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/547c8952ecad04cf78b2c11f-1150-862/tim-cook-steve-jobs-6.jpg" border="0" alt="tim cook steve jobs"></p><p>Apple is scheduled to begin yet another antitrust lawsuit tomorrow in Oakland, Calif.</p>
<p>And while it's been three years since Steve Jobs has died, the late Apple founder will still play a large role in the case, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/technology/star-witness-in-apple-suit-is-steve-jobs.html">reports The New York Times.</a></p>
<p>The class action lawsuit against Apple concerns the company's old iPods, which were originally only able to play music purchased from iTunes or ripped from a CD. If customers wanted to purchase songs from a competing music download store, they couldn't use their iPod to listen.</p>
<p>Apple later changed this policy, opening up the iPod's compatibility.</p>
<p>The case, which features over 900 filings, argues that Apple used anticompetitive measures to make sure its iPods only played songs from iTunes or CDs.</p>
<p><span>If Apple loses the case, potential damages are estimated to be around $350 million.</span></p>
<p>To prove Apple's anticompetitive measures,&nbsp;<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">emails written from Steve Jobs are expected to play an important role in the case, along with a video deposition recorded before his death.&nbsp;</span><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This should worry Apple, as Steve Jobs was known for his blunt and sometimes threatening emails, which were used against Apple in its two past antitrust cases.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">"We will present evidence that Apple took action to block its competitors and in the process harmed competition and harmed consumers," Bonny Sweeney, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/technology/star-witness-in-apple-suit-is-steve-jobs.html">told The New York Times.</a></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Some of the emails are already public, including one email from 2003 where Steve Jobs instructed other Apple executives to ensure rival music store, Musicmatch, wouldn't work with the iPod.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">“We need to make sure that when Musicmatch launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue?” Jobs wrote, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/technology/star-witness-in-apple-suit-is-steve-jobs.html">according to The New York Times.</a></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">While some of the emails from Jobs are public, new emails are expected to surface throughout the course of the trial.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In addition to the emails and video deposition from Jobs, Apple executives Philip Schiller and Eddy Cue are expected to testify. Schiller is Apple's head of marketing. Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of internet software and services, is also in charge of the iTunes Store.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">To fight against accusations of anticompetitive practices, Apple will likely need to prove that updates to iTunes, like the one that prevented Musicmatch songs from playing on the iPod, were responsible for introducing improvements for consumers rather than restricting what they could listen to on iPods.</span></p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-threw-ipod-prototype-into-an-aquarium-to-prove-a-point-2014-11" >Steve Jobs Dropped The First iPod Prototype Into An Aquarium To Prove A Point</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-antitrust-case-to-see-steve-jobs-emails-and-video-deposition-as-testimony-2014-12#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-and-the-us-are-going-to-war-over-google-2014-11Europe And The US Are At War Over Breaking Up Google (GOOG)http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-and-the-us-are-going-to-war-over-google-2014-11
Wed, 26 Nov 2014 03:38:00 -0500Mike Bird
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5475b567dd08951e798b4567-1200-800/battleoflongisland.jpg" alt="Battle of Long island revolutionary war america britain" border="0"></p><p>US lawmakers are now weighing in heavily against the motion currently going through the European Parliament which <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-eu-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11">would advise breaking up Google</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-eu-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11">Google execs are known to be "furious"</a> at the EU's idea that the search giant — which has a 90% market share in Europe — is a monopoly that needs to be split apart.</p>
<p>The letter from Washington politicians is the biggest sideswipe yet against the EU proposals, with senior cross-party figures from both the House and Senate lining up to give the EU a kicking. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d903290-74c9-11e4-a418-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3K9yTsYZq">The Financial Times has published some clips from the letter</a>:&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote class="blockquote">
<p>A joint letter from the Republican and Democrat leadership of the Senate finance committee and House ways and means committee said “proposals that seem to target US technology companies” raised questions “about the EU’s commitment to open markets”.</p>
<p data-track-pos="2">“This and similar proposals build walls rather than bridges [and] do not appear to give full consideration to the negative effect such policies may have on the broader&nbsp;US-EU trade relationship,” wrote senators Ron Wyden and Orrin Hatch and congressmen Dave Camo and Sander Levin.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to the FT, the chairman of the House of Representatives' judiciary committee also warned against "<span>encouraging antitrust enforcement efforts that appear to be motivated by politics".&nbsp;</span>The letter comes less than a day after the US mission to the EU warned the European bloc <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-united-states-says-eus-google-case-should-not-be-politicized-2014-11">not to politicise the probe</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The references to politicisation are probably referring to the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20288077">EU's tax complaints about Google and other companies</a>. The suggestion that the online giant should be split aren't officially motivated by that, and are to do with allegations that its search engine is too dominant&nbsp;<span>— but US lawmakers seem pretty sceptical.&nbsp;</span></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-and-the-us-are-going-to-war-over-google-2014-11#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-cant-split-google-in-two-anyway-these-antitrust-experts-say-2014-11Europe Can't Split Google In Two Anyway, These Antitrust Experts Say (GOOG)http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-cant-split-google-in-two-anyway-these-antitrust-experts-say-2014-11
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:55:34 -0500Matt Rosoff
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/53d6ad4ceab8ead94566954e-600-/larry-page-not-bad-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Larry Page not bad " width="600"></p><p>The European parliament is thinking about making a ruling that Google split off its search engine from other parts of its business, according to a report today in the <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/617568ea-71a1-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz3JjN29Jiz">Financial Times</a>.&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">But we were wondering: how can Europe order an American company to break apart? How would that even work?</span></p>
<p>"I don't know," answered <a href="http://law.uiowa.edu/herbert-hovenkamp">Herbert Hovenkamp</a>, a law professor at the University of Iowa who is considered one of the leading American experts on European antitrust law.</p>
<p>"I<span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;think it’d be very difficult for Google to disaggregate all its own assets and interests from Google Search just in Europe. I'm not saying it couldn’t do it, but it would be costly. You’d get a lot of squawking from European consumers because it would deteriorate the quality of Google search quite a bit." </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">That's because Google uses its own products to provide quick answers to certain kinds of queries.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">(It must be noted that Hovenkamp did some work for Google in 2010 during its dispute with the American Federal Trade Commission, but hasn't worked for them since.)</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/hylton_k.html">Keith Hylton</a>, an law professor at Boston University, agrees. "<span>The European Parliament has no authority to break up Google – and I’m surprised that this sort of legislation isn’t considered unfair, since it targets one entity for punishment."</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span>However, Hylton thinks Google would be wise to take the threat seriously.&nbsp;</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span>"<span>Expect a much harsher deal than Google worked out earlier with the previous EC competition commissioner Almunia.&nbsp; That earlier deal was a laughable outcome in which Google was poised to make more money from the remedy than it would have made without EC intervention."</span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span><span><span>Regulators in Europe have been looking at Google closely for a few years now, concerned that the company is&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-europe-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11">using its search dominance</a><span>&nbsp;to guide users to its own products and away from competing products, as well as generally playing unfair in the advertising market.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span><span>But both professors think that the American Federal Trade Commission had the right idea when it looked at Google, found no wrongdoing, and closed its investigation. </span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span>The reason? Unlike the case with <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/keep-in-mind-the-government-didnt-topple-microsoft-competition-did-2014-11">Microsoft in the 1990s</a>, where consumers paid for Windows on new PCs and faced some technical barriers in switching to a new operating system, using Google search is free and it's easy for people to switch search engines.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;"><span><span>"I</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">f a customer doesn’t like a particular search engine they can switch to different one," says Hovenkamp. "The thing about bias with respect to Google assets or interests, that problem can be addressed by requiring Google to post a note or symbol" — for instance, YouTube results could be clearly marked as coming from Google.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">"M</span><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.5em;">y view is this is problem that can be addressed with something much more modest and less reactionary," he added.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-europe-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11" >Here's Why Europe Is Thinking Of Splitting Google Up</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-cant-split-google-in-two-anyway-these-antitrust-experts-say-2014-11#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-eu-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11THE EU WANTS TO BREAK UP GOOGLE (GOOG)http://www.businessinsider.com/the-eu-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:08:00 -0500Jay Yarow and Matt Rosoff
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/546f90676da8116f52013245-600-/google-eric-schmidt-2.jpg" border="0" alt="google eric schmidt" width="600"></p><p>The European Union is planning its most aggressive move yet to curb Google's growing power.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/617568ea-71a1-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F617568ea-71a1-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0.html%3Fftcamp%3Dcrm%2Femail%2F2014%3Fftcamp%3Dcrm%2Femail%2F20141121%2Fnbe%2FExclusiveComment%2Fproduct_a2___a3__%2Fnbe%2FExclusiveComment%2Fproduct%26siteedition%3Dintl&amp;_i_referer=#axzz3JjR8y0wC">According to the FT</a>, the European parliament is considering a motion that would suggest Google unbundle its search engine from its other products.</p>
<p>Google executives are said to be "furious" about the proposal, which they only found out about a couple days ago.</p>
<p>The big concern is that nearly everybody uses Google for search — it's got well over 90% share in Europe. In 2011, some smaller specialized search companies complained that Google moved them down in search results so that users wouldn't easily be able to find them. Microsoft also complained that Google had done things like make it hard for Bing to search Google's YouTube, and blocked advertisers from accessing data. The EU has been investigating on and off ever since.</p>
<p>The parliament doesn't have the power to order Google to split up on its own, but could pressure antitrust regulators, who have been investigating Google for more than three years now. The concern is that Google uses its search dominance to squeeze out search results that would guide people to potential competitors.</p>
<p>Germany has been most aggressive toward Google, and its justice minister <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-wants-google-to-reveal-its-search-algorithm-2014-9">called on the company</a> to publish exactly how it ranks search results. Today, a German member of the European parliament, Andreas Schwab, who is one of the backers of the motion, said that "unbundling cannot be excluded."&nbsp;</p>
<p>Google and the EU were said to be reaching a deal earlier this year, but Microsoft and some other competitors <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-microsoft-publishers-try-to-stop-catastrophic-google-eu-deal-2014-9">argued against it</a>, and the EU reopened its investigation in September.</p>
<p>The European parliament will agree on final language for the proposal next week and is expected to vote on it next Thursday.&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/617568ea-71a1-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F617568ea-71a1-11e4-9048-00144feabdc0.html%3Fftcamp%3Dcrm%2Femail%2F2014%3Fftcamp%3Dcrm%2Femail%2F20141121%2Fnbe%2FExclusiveComment%2Fproduct_a2___a3__%2Fnbe%2FExclusiveComment%2Fproduct%26siteedition%3Dintl&amp;_i_referer=#axzz3JjR8y0wC">Read the whole thing at the FT &gt;&gt;</a></p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-europe-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11" >Here's What The EU Is So Concerned About</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-eu-wants-to-break-up-google-2014-11#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-microsoft-publishers-try-to-stop-catastrophic-google-eu-deal-2014-9Microsoft Is Trying To Stop Google's 'Catastrophic' Antitrust Deal With Europehttp://www.businessinsider.com/r-microsoft-publishers-try-to-stop-catastrophic-google-eu-deal-2014-9
Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:51:42 -0400Foo Yun Chee
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/540874195afbd378638b4576-450-300/microsoft-publishers-try-to-stop-catastrophic-google-eu-deal-2014-9.jpg" border="0" alt="European Union Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia addresses a news conference at the EU Commission headquarters in Brussels July 9, 2014. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir "></p><p></p>
<p>BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Microsoft and publishers across Europe attacked Google's antitrust deal with EU regulators, calling it a "catastrophic" proposal that would serve only to entrench its dominance of the online search market.</p>
<p>European Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia is preparing to decide on the case after spending three years examining whether Google squeezes out rival services in online search results.</p>
<p>The 66-year-old Spaniard, who reached a preliminary deal with the world's most popular Internet search engine in February, has around two months to issue the final decision before he leaves office. He has told 18 complainants that he intends to rebuff their grievances and is now examining their responses.</p>
<p>The case has become highly politicized, with sources saying about a third of Almunia's colleagues in the Commission are opposed to the deal. Sources told Reuters the EU may close the current case and open another one into Google's Android mobile operating system.</p>
<p>The head of British price-comparison site Foundem, Shivaun Raff, said the Commission had no evidence that Google's offer to let three rivals display their logos and web links in a box and allow content providers to decide what material Google can use for its own services would resolve competition issues.</p>
<p>"(Google's proposals) are not a remedy. They are a catastrophic escalation of the abuse," Raff told a news conference.</p>
<p>Microsoft's director of competition law, Jean-Yves Art, said the U.S. software company was particularly concerned about Google's contractual curbs on advertisers making it difficult for them to switch to other online platforms.</p>
<p>"The proposals don't cure or eliminate all restrictions that we and rivals see. There are still restrictions preventing them from providing interoperability," he said at the news conference.</p>
<p>Representatives from newspapers and magazine publishers across Europe, online travel site Expedia and a host of complainants from Germany and Britain were also present at the event.</p>
<p>Almunia's spokesman Antoine Colombani declined to comment. Google spokesman Al Verney did not immediately reply to emails and telephone calls.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>(Editing by Tom Pfeiffer)</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-microsoft-publishers-try-to-stop-catastrophic-google-eu-deal-2014-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-gives-microsoft-20-days-to-provide-explanation-in-anti-trust-probe-2014-9Microsoft Has 20 Days To Explain Itself In China's Antitrust Probehttp://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-gives-microsoft-20-days-to-provide-explanation-in-anti-trust-probe-2014-9
Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:55:27 -0400
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/54040c9a5afbd3832c8b4567-450-300/china-gives-microsoft-20-days-to-provide-explanation-in-anti-trust-probe-2014-9.jpg" border="0" alt="People visit the Microsoft booth during the 2014 Computex exhibition at the TWTC Nangang exhibition hall in Taipei June 3, 2014. REUTERS/Pichi Chuang"></p><p>BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese anti-trust regulator said on Monday it has given Microsoft Corp &lt;msft.o&gt; 20 days to reply to queries on the compatability of its Windows operating system and Office software suite amid a probe into the world's largest software company.</p>
<p>The State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) questioned Microsoft Vice President David Chen and gave the company a deadline to make an explanation, the agency said in a short statement on its website.</p>
<p>SAIC also repeated that it suspected the company has not fully disclosed issues relating to the compatability of the software and the operating system.</p>
<p>"[A] special investigation team conducted an anti-monopoly investigation inquiry with Microsoft Vice President Chen Shi (David Chen), and required that Microsoft make a written explanation within 20 days," the SAIC said in a statement on its website.</p>
<p>In a statement, Microsoft said it was "serious about complying with China's laws and committed to addressing SAIC's questions and concerns".</p>
<p>Microsoft is one of at least 30 foreign companies that have come under scrutiny by China's anti-monopoly regulators, as the government seeks to enforce its six-year old antitrust law. Critics say the law is being used to unfairly target overseas businesses, a charge the regulators deny.</p>
<p>Last month, a delegation from chipmaker Qualcomm Inc &lt;qcom.o&gt;, led by company President Derek Aberle, met officials at the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) as part of that regulator's investigation of the San Diego-based firm.</p>
<p>NDRC said earlier this year that the U.S. chipmaker is suspected of overcharging and abusing its market position in wireless communication standards.</p>
<p>Microsoft's Satya Nadella is expected to make his first visit to China as chief executive later this month.</p>
<p>(Reporting by Michael Martina and Matthew Miller; Editing by Miral Fahmy)</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-gives-microsoft-20-days-to-provide-explanation-in-anti-trust-probe-2014-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-regulators-will-watch-rupert-murdochs-time-warner-deal-2014-7Could Federal Regulators Crush Rupert Murdoch's Time Warner Dreams?http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-regulators-will-watch-rupert-murdochs-time-warner-deal-2014-7
Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:46:32 -0400Hunter Walker
<p><img src="http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/53c6c7626da811c658fcb8de-800-/rupert-murdoch-23.jpg" border="0" alt="Rupert Murdoch " width="800" /></p><p>Multiple antitrust experts told Business Insider federal regulators will almost certainly have their eye on any <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-offered-to-buy-timewarner-2014-7">deal for Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox to buy Time Warner</a>.</p>
<p>"I'm sure regulators will take a close look at this," said Scott Hemphill, a professor at Columbia specializing in antitrust and intellectual property.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hemphill said the main issue for regulators would be the potential the "increased concentration" of television programmers and movie studios created by merging the two companies could lead to "higher prices" for distributors, consumers, and advertisers. He cited two major elements of the deal regulators were likely to focus on.</p>
<p>"I think as an initial matter, the main antitrust question here is whether the firms are combining competing assets. And the reason you would care is the standard antitrust concern, which is that, by reducing competition among rivals, you might end up with higher prices," Hemphill said.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hemphill explained the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-fox-time-warner-own-2014-7">long roster of networks</a> Fox would own if it bought Time Warner could give it greater leverage to demand higher fees in negotiations with TV distributors. In turn, those costs could be passed along to consumers. He pointed out this was likely why Fox reportedly plans to spin off CNN if it purchased Time Warner.</p>
<p>"The most obvious concern that it seems like the folks at Fox anticipated is the probable combination of CNN and Fox News," said Hemphill. "As indicated in the press reports, they would divest CNN to head off that concern."</p>
<p>Hemphill noted there could "potentially" be similar concerns about sports programming in addition to the two cable news outlets owned by Fox and Time Warner.</p>
<p>Along with the potential the deal would lead to higher prices for distributors, Hemphill also said regulators would want to examine whether a merger would affect prices for advertisers in areas of the television landscape "where the advertiser doesn't have alternative choices" outside of the company.</p>
<p>In addition to television programming, Hemphill said there could be antitrust issues with the pair of movie studios owned by the two companies &ndash; Warner Bros. Entertainment and Twentieth Century Fox.</p>
<p>"I&nbsp;think the other piece here is the combination of movie studios. As I understand it, there are currently six main movie studios. This would bring it to five," Hemphill said. "As a rough rule of thumb, six to five combinations tend not to raise eyebrows. So, I think that's a second area that regulators would likely focus on, but maybe the less important of the two."</p>
<p>Maurice Stucke, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and former Department of Justice antitrust division attorney, said he would be "really cautious about saying six to five is not a problem," though he noted it can be a general "rule of thumb." He argued antitrust laws are aimed at preventing both express collusion where the businesses who dominate an industry fix prices as well as passive collusion where there is no direct communication, but a small enough number of companies control the market for a given product that they are able to effectively fix prices together.</p>
<p>"Is six to five sufficient to prevent either form of collusion from occurring? " Stucke asked. "You can see that cartels happen in industries with very few competitors, but cartels also happen in industries with many competitors."</p>
<p>Stucke agreed the potential acquisition could be a concern for the DOJ &ndash; and he argued the Clayton Act, a major component of federal antitrust law, is aimed at stopping increased concentration "in its incipiency" rather than after it has already occurred. &nbsp;</p>
<p>"You're supposed to nip it in the bud," he said.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Stucke also argued the fact media companies are involved, could make it an issue for the Federal Communications Commission.&nbsp;</p>
<p>"You're dealing with important news and entertainment sources and there the question is, well, if we get it wrong here, the stakes are much higher than just getting it wrong with ordinary commodities," explained Stucke. "When you get it wrong with media companies, it just doesn't affect the prices that are paid, it can also affect the marketplace of ideas and getting important voices out."</p>
<p>Because of Fox and Time Warner's role in that "marketplace of ideas," Stucke said the FCC might weigh in because of the "public interest standard that they have."</p>
<p>"It's going to be a concern for at least one of the agencies," he predicted.</p>
<p>Overall, Stucke said federal regulators would get it "wrong" if they solely focused on financial concerns rather than Fox and Time Warner's roles as media companies.</p>
<p>"The key point here is, if you focus only on price in these matters, particularly advertising rates, you're likely to get it wrong. That's one of the lessons from the consolidation in the radio industry that came about after the 1996 Telecom Act," said Stucke. "If you look at the radio mergers, DOJ only looked at ad rates, they didn't look at quality of formatting, quality of competition, and the like. And they got it wrong twice. As the FCC studies showed, advertising rates went up because of the concentration. Secondly, they got it wrong on the quality competition for listeners because of the complaints about homogeniety of radio."</p>
<p>Stuckey suggested the "linchpin" for federal approval of a potential acquisition of Time Warner by Fox would be another major media deal &ndash; the merger between two television distributors, Comcast and Time Warner Cable. That merger is currently being reviewed by the FCC and DOJ.</p>
<p>"The Time Warner Cable and Comcast deal plays an important part because there they're saying, 'We need to get bigger in order to negotiatewith the studios,'" Stucke said. "If the DOJ says, We're going to agree and allow that merger to go through,' the studios are going to say, 'Look, you allowed Comcast, look how many homes they control. Our deal is not going to be bigger than that, we're just trying to offset.'"</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/experts-regulators-will-watch-rupert-murdochs-time-warner-deal-2014-7#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-intel-loses-court-challenge-against-144-billion-eu-fine-2014-12Intel Lost Its Antitrust Appeal, So Now They Have To Pay $1.4 Billion To Rival Chipmaker AMDhttp://www.businessinsider.com/r-intel-loses-court-challenge-against-144-billion-eu-fine-2014-12
Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:50:00 -0400By Foo Yun Chee
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53995f455afbd3af648b4567-450-300/intel-loses-court-challenge-against-144-billion-eu-fine.jpg" border="0" alt="An employee walks past an Intel logo during the 2014 Computex exhibition at the TWTC Nangang exhibition hall in Taipei June 3, 2014. REUTERS/Pichi Chuang" /></p><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - U.S. chipmaker Intel &lt;INTC.O&gt; lost on Thursday its challenge against a record 1.06-billion-euro ($1.44 billion) fine handed down by European Union antitrust regulators five years ago for blocking rival Advanced Micro Devices &lt;AMD.N&gt;.</span></p>
<p>The European Commission in its 2009 decision said Intel tried to thwart AMD by giving rebates to PC makers Dell, Hewlett-Packard Co &lt;HPQ.N&gt;, Japan's NEC &lt;6701.T&gt; and Lenovo &lt;0992.HK&gt; for buying most of their computer chips from Intel. The EU competition authority said Intel also paid German retail chain Media Saturn Holding to stock only computers with its chips.</p>
<p>Judges at the Luxembourg-based General Court backed the Commission's decision.</p>
<p>"The Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that Intel attempted to conceal the anti-competitive nature of its practices and implemented a long term comprehensive strategy to foreclose AMD from the strategically most important sales channels," the court said.</p>
<p>Judges said the EU watchdog had not been heavy-handed with the level of the fine, equal to 4.15 percent of Intel's 2008 turnover, versus a possible maximum of 10 percent. While Commission penalties rarely hit the top figure, the rising level of fines is a source of worry for many companies.</p>
<p>"The General Court considers that none of the arguments raised by Intel supports the conclusion that the fine imposed is disproportionate. On the contrary, it must be considered that fine is appropriate in the light of the facts of the case," judges said. Intel can take its case further to the Court of Justice of the European Union but only on points of law. The case is T-286/09, Intel vs Commission.</p>
<p>($1 = 0.7345 Euros)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<span style="line-height: 1.5em;">(Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by Robin Emmott)</span></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-intel-loses-court-challenge-against-144-billion-eu-fine-2014-12#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-probing-comcast-plan-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-3US States Are Probing Comcast's Plan To Buy Time Warner Cablehttp://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-probing-comcast-plan-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-3
Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:15:00 -0400Diane Bartz
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/532997bcecad04230cdf3c0e-480-/time-warner-cable-9.jpg" border="0" alt="Time Warner Cable" width="480" /></p><p>WASHINGTON (Reuters) -&nbsp;Florida&nbsp;and other U.S. states will join the Justice Department in seeking to determine if Comcast's plan to merge with Time Warner Cable is legal under U.S. antitrust law,&nbsp;Florida&nbsp;said in a statement to Reuters.</p>
<p>"We are part of a multistate group reviewing the proposed transaction along with the U.S. DOJ (Justice Department)&nbsp;Antitrust Division," the&nbsp;Florida state attorney general's office&nbsp;said in an emailed statement.</p>
<p>It was not known how many states had joined the task force.</p>
<p>Separately,&nbsp;Indiana&nbsp;officials were also looking at the deal to determine "the potential impact in&nbsp;Indiana."&nbsp;Erin Reece, a spokeswoman for the&nbsp;Indiana&nbsp;attorney general's office, did not indicate if&nbsp;Indiana&nbsp;was part of the multistate group.</p>
<p>The attorneys general group is focused on&nbsp;broadband&nbsp;rather than cable in assessing the $45.2 billion deal, according to a source familiar with the effort who was not authorized to speak on the record.</p>
<p>Comcast&nbsp;did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the states' review of its proposed deal.</p>
<p>Comcast&nbsp;has previously argued the combination would not reduce competition because the two cable providers do not compete in any markets. The company pledged to divest 3 million subscribers, so the combined customer base of 30 million would represent just under 30 percent of the U.S. pay television video market.</p>
<p>A combined&nbsp;Comcast&nbsp;and Time Warner Cable would also have roughly one-third share of the&nbsp;high-speed Internetmarket.</p>
<p>Comcast, which is the No. 1 U.S. cable provider, said on February 13 it had agreed to acquire No. 4 Time Warner Cable.</p>
<p>That generated criticism from some lawmakers and consumer groups concerned that there were already too few options when Americans went to sign up for&nbsp;broadband&nbsp;or cable service.</p>
<p>Content providers - entities that make television shows and movies - also worry that a merger of the two cable giants will mean too few buyers for their products, and that those buyers will be able to push their fees down.</p>
<p>Comcast, which owns large amounts of content after its 2011 merger with&nbsp;NBC Universal, and Time Warner Cable paid nearly $14 billion to content companies last year for the rights to show their films, television shows and sporting events.</p>
<p>The fact that states are involved typically gives the Justice Department additional resources - and sometimes creates additional pressure - to ensure that a proposed transaction complies with antitrust law.</p>
<p>The&nbsp;Federal Communications Commission&nbsp;must also approve the deal before it can close.</p>
<p>(Reporting by Diane Bartz, editing by Ros Krasny and Doina Chiacu)</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/us-states-probing-comcast-plan-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/r-apple-urges-us-appeals-court-to-void-radical-e-books-ruling-2014-26Apple Warns In Appeal That The 'Radical’ Antitrust Decision Will Have Dire Consequenceshttp://www.businessinsider.com/r-apple-urges-us-appeals-court-to-void-radical-e-books-ruling-2014-26
Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:26:00 -0500Jonathan Stempel
<p>NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc urged a U.S. appeals court to throw out a judge's "radical" finding that it violated antitrust law by manipulating electronic book prices, and blamed publishers for running a conspiracy it claimed to know nothing about.</p>
<p>The request on Tuesday night came after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York concluded last July after a nonjury trial that Apple had played a "central role" in illegally scheming as early as December 2009 with five publishers to raise e-book prices and impede competitors such as Amazon.com Inc.</p>
<p>The publishers previously agreed to pay more than $166 million to settle related antitrust charges.</p>
<p>Apple introduced e-books in 2010 to help boost sales for its then-new iPad tablet.</p>
<p>In a filing with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Apple said it "had no knowledge that the publishers were engaged in a conspiracy" at any time.</p>
<p>It said it lawfully took advantage of market "discord" and the publishers' own frustrations with Amazon, and "kick-started competition in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated innovation."</p>
<p>Cote's decision "is a radical departure from modern antitrust law," Apple said. "If allowed to stand, the ruling will stifle innovation, chill competition, and harm consumers."</p>
<p>The Cupertino, California-based company asked the 2nd Circuit to reverse Cote's decision or else give it a new trial before a different judge.</p>
<p>Apple also again faulted Cote's appointment of Washington lawyer Michael Bromwich to monitor its antitrust compliance, calling that oversight unconstitutional.</p>
<p>The U.S. Department of Justice, which brought the case, was not immediately available on Wednesday for comment. That agency is expected to reply in writing to Apple's request.</p>
<p>In her decision, Cote also found Apple liable to 33 U.S. states for antitrust violations. She is expected to consider possible damages later this year. Apple said the states and private plaintiffs sought more than $800 million of damages.</p>
<p>On February 10, the 2nd Circuit rejected Apple's request to halt Bromwich's oversight during its appeal.</p>
<p>The case is U.S. v. Apple Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-3741.</p>
<p>(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/r-apple-urges-us-appeals-court-to-void-radical-e-books-ruling-2014-26#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/american-airlines-us-airways-work-on-settlement-2013-10American Airlines And US Airways Are Working On A Settlement To Complete Their $11 Billion Mergerhttp://www.businessinsider.com/american-airlines-us-airways-work-on-settlement-2013-10
Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:04:00 -0400Diane Bartz and Karen Jacobs
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51db23b8eab8eab60200000c-480-/american-airlines-at-gate.jpg" border="0" alt="American Airlines at gate" width="480" /></p><p>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - US Airways Group &lt;LCC.N&gt; and American Airlines are considering giving up takeoff and landing slots at Washington's Ronald Reagan National Airport to win regulator approval of their $11 billion merger, two people familiar with the matter said.</p>
<p>The airlines are hoping to reach a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department before the trial, due to begin November 25, paving the way for a deal that would create the world's largest air carrier, the sources said.</p>
<p>The companies' stock prices have climbed in anticipation of a deal, and they rose further on Wednesday after a Dow Jones report on a potential proposal to overcome regulatory concerns. American Airlines' parent company AMR Corp &lt;AAMRQ.PK&gt; closed up 4.3 percent at $7.30 and US Airways Group Inc ended 0.94 percent higher at $22.58.</p>
<p>US Airways and AMR declined to comment. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.</p>
<p>In a complaint filed in August aimed at stopping the proposed transaction, the Justice Department focused on Reagan National. The two carriers control a combined 69 percent of takeoff and landing slots at the airport, which is used by many members of Congress to travel to and from their home districts.</p>
<p>In its complaint, the federal government also listed more than 1,000 city pairings where the two airlines dominate the market and where a merger could conceivably drive up prices or cut the number of flights.</p>
<p>Dow Jones reported that one of the two people familiar with the proposed settlement said that the airlines still expected to go to trial.</p>
<p>Earlier this week, the two sides agreed on a mediator, according to a court filing. Both the airlines and the Justice Department have said that they are open to a settlement.</p>
<p>Wednesday's developments came as the carriers and interested parties, including unions, continue a full-court lobbying press in favor of the merger.</p>
<p>Business leaders, mayors and members of Congress representing many of the cities where the airlines have hubs have this month thrown their support behind a deal.</p>
<p>Four unions allied with airlines, many of whose workers would get raises if the deal goes through, took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Wednesday supporting the merger.</p>
<p>Unions of flight attendants, pilots and others have held rallies in Washington and other cities where American and US Airways have hubs in recent months and pressed attorneys general in states that joined the government lawsuit to drop out.</p>
<p>Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott withdrew from the U.S. lawsuit earlier this month, raising the prospect that other states might follow.</p>
<p>Other states still involved in the suit include Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia.</p>
<p>Tom Hoban, an American pilot and Allied Pilots Association spokesman, said earlier on Wednesday that the lobbying will likely continue.</p>
<p>"That's part of the overall strategy. We want to compel those that initially came out in support of DOJ and help them get religion on the subject," he said.</p>
<p>US Airways' spending on lobbying has surged during the fight to win approval for the merger. The company spent $1.68 million on lobbying in 2011, $2.8 million in 2012, as it was ramping up for the deal, and $4.2 million in the first three quarters of 2013, according to the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act database.</p>
<p>The case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is No. 1:13-cv-1236.</p>
<p>(Additional reporting by Soyoung Kim; Editing by Stephen Coates)</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-dassault-falcon-5x-price-skylight-2013-10" >Tour The $45 Million Falcon 5X Private Jet, Featuring A Skylight</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/american-airlines-us-airways-work-on-settlement-2013-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-block-of-airline-merger-shows-new-policy-2013-8Justice Department To Airlines: Your Days Of Mega-Consolidation Mergers Are Overhttp://www.businessinsider.com/doj-block-of-airline-merger-shows-new-policy-2013-8
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 12:59:23 -0400Alex Davies
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/520bdfef6bb3f73a4000000d-480-/american-airlines-us-airways-at-reagan-airport-dc-1.jpg" border="0" alt="american airlines us airways at reagan airport dc" width="480" /></p><p>The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Monday to block the $11 billion merger of American Airlines and US Airways, a deal that would have created the world's largest airline.</p>
<p>It was a surprise move from an office that has allowed three major airline combinations in the past five years, and could mark a watershed moment in how the DOJ handles the airline industry.</p>
<p>The DOJ complaint argues that the merger is not key to the survival of either company and that the loss of a competitor in an already small field would "result in passengers paying higher airfares and receiving less service."</p>
<p>For their part, American and US Airways said they plan to "mount a vigorous defense and pursue all legal options" to complete the "procompetitive deal."</p>
<p><strong><strong>A Line In The Sand</strong></strong></p>
<p>This isn't totally new territory for the DOJ. It <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/July/361at.htm" target="_blank">blocked United's proposed acquisition of US Airways</a> in July 2001, on the grounds that it would lead to higher airfares. But given that it has allowed more recent deals to go through (Delta and Northwest in 2008, United and Continental in 2010, and Southwest and Airtran in 2011) without protest, this pivot looks like a watershed moment.</p>
<p>Of the three big recent mergers, the DOJ only interfered in one, requiring United-Continental to give up some slots at Newark Liberty International Airport, to Southwest Airlines. That, <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-at-974.html" target="_blank">it said at the time</a>, "resolves the department's principal competition concerns."</p>
<p>In contrast, the appendix to this lawsuit lists more than 1,000 routes between cities where the combined airline would have a presumptively illegal monopoly. That's evidence that the Department does not think this can be resolved, antitrust lawyer <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/government-blocks-american-us-airways-merger-2013-8" target="_blank">Marc Ostrau told Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>Bert Foer, President and Founder of the American Antitrust Institute, told Business Insider "they've pretty much precluded a post-complaint divestiture remedy," referring to the possibility that the DOJ would let the deal go through if the airlines gave up some key slots at airports where their dominance would most hamper competition.</p>
<p>This could be indicative, Foer says, of a new, more systematic approach to analyzing how airlines operate and compete. Given the modern airlines business, that's a better way to look at it, Brookings Institution senior research associate Adie Tomer said in an interview.</p>
<p>The city pair view is less valid now, Tomer explained, because the big domestic airlines can fly just about anywhere in the country &mdash; they just have to stop somewhere first. "At the end of the day, they have complete overlap."</p>
<p>Whether or not the DOJ is basing this decision on a new view of the industry, the move represents a "sea change," Tomer said, and "suggests DOJ is trying to start drawing a line in the sand."</p>
<p><strong><img class="float_left" src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/520bdeca69beddad7d000000-1200-924/william-bill-baer-department-justice-in-1998-intel-processor-1.jpg" border="0" alt="William Bill Baer department justice in 1998 intel processor" width="480" />Why Now?</strong></p>
<p>The shift could be the result of new personnel in the DOJ. Bill Baer was confirmed as the assistant attorney general for the antitrust division in December 2012.</p>
<p><a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/william-baer-confirmed-as-justice-department-antitrust-chief/" target="_blank">According to the New York Times</a>, antitrust experts expected him "to continue what has been widely seen as the Justice Department&rsquo;s reinvigorated enforcement of antitrust laws after a period of lax oversight during the Bush administration."</p>
<p>The blocking of the new merger may be an indication of Baer's leadership, Foer speculated. In January 2012, the Department hired its <a href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/division-update/2012/ryan.html" target="_blank">first director of litigation</a>, Mark Ryan &mdash; a sign that it is willing to go to court when necessary.</p>
<p><strong>Time To Rein In The Airline Industry?</strong></p>
<p>"Frankly, I don't see much difference" between this merger and past ones, Tomer said. The combination of American Airlines and US Airways would create the world's largest airline, like the merger of Delta and Northwest did in 2008.</p>
<p>It seems the DOJ's lawsuit is more a product of the industry's current situation than a reaction to a deal that goes too far.</p>
<p>The steady consolidation of US airlines &mdash; from <a href="http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/division-update/2012/ryan.html" target="_blank">10 major airlines 12 years ago to five today</a> &mdash; has helped the industry remain profitable in recent years, though <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/airlines-have-a-small-profit-margin-2012-6" target="_blank">margins are very thin</a>.</p>
<p>But at a certain point, the interest of consumers (who need more competition to keep fares affordable) must be balanced against the interest of airlines (who need less competition to stay in business).</p>
<p>The DOJ, it seems, has decided that now &mdash; when five airlines could drop to four &mdash; is that time.</p>
<p>In its complaint, the DOJ rejects the idea that either airline needs this deal to stay in business, arguing, "American does not need this merger to thrive, let alone survive."</p>
<p>In a report following the DOJ decision, J.P. Morgan analyst Jamie Baker wrote that keeping US Airways (LCC) and American Airlines (AMR) independent makes them weak compared to Delta (DAL) and United (UAL).</p>
<p>The Airline Pilots Association, the world's biggest pilot union, is much more upset, writing <a href="http://www.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/PressRoom/PressReleases/2013/8-13-13_13.47.htm" target="_blank">in a statement</a>&nbsp;that the "<span>DOJ has completely ignored decades of instability in the airline industry."&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>Airlines for America, a trade group whose members transport more than 90% of US airline passenger and cargo traffic, struck a similar tone in an emailed statement, saying consumers win when airlines are strong.</p>
<p>But the DOJ argues that American Airlines and US Airways will be fine financially on their own, and that the merger would hurt customers too much to let it go down.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it's most likely the courts will decide who's right.</p><p><strong>SEE ALSO:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/25-photos-from-golden-age-of-aviation-2013-7" >25 Vintage Photos From The Glory Days Of Aviation</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-block-of-airline-merger-shows-new-policy-2013-8#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p>